The article is
very interesting because it allows me to highlight the importance of having a
proper perspective to fully appreciate the value of the book.

The reporter did
not understand in my opinion the essence of the story and the historical
reconstruction of Paul, and present the book as a kind of "Da Vinci
Code" of Volkswagen, likely, very rich in information and details for the
most part true, but in substance aimed to support a fanciful if not
improbable hypothesis: when he states that “ ... Whether the readers of
Schilperoord's book will accept the thesis that without Ganz the Volkswagen
would not have existed is less certain...." betrays his wrong attitude.

It is in my
opinion misleading toconsider that the thesis of the book is to gain acceptance
for the idea that without the Volkswagen Ganz would never have existed; this is a recurrent concept that appeared from
time to time, more as a journalistic simplification than for the
willingness to monopolize the paternity of a concept that, as Paul himself
confirms, has had many fathers. Dividing people into pros and cons, making
no effort to identify facts and opinions, seems to me extremely simplistic.

Some of the facts that
I consider to be important are the followings:

1. The
concept of people's car was not a stroke of genius of Hitler, but the product
of convergent thinking and innovation of a group of technical experts, which have
reached conclusions that were mutually compatible, strongly influenced by the
Tropfenwagen Rumpler unveiled at the Berlin motor show in 1921;

2. If the
paternity of the general concept is very
questionable, that of the specific technical solutions that made it possible is
not, as confirmed by the "patent
war" very well described in the book and the documentation which were
published in the contemporary press, including
Motor Kritic;

3. The
contribution of Porsche remains of fundamental importance , in the sense that
its realization is not the simple synthesis of other’s ideas, but their
development to a new level. It is sufficient to compare the size and
performance of the 1000 RM volkswagen imagined by Ganz (and never realized,
given that the Standard Superior had a much higher price), and the one built by
Porsche to realize what I mean. To be objective, it must be admitted that
Porsche has failed from this point of view, because he could achieve the
required sales price of 990 RM only after elimination all of the costs that a
manufacturer would normally have to support, like (as illustrated by Paul)
royalties for the use of patented solutions. Do not forget that the
goal was to produce a car for the masses for the price of a good motorcycle,
and that the prices after the war confirmed how the result was far from the
target;

4. The
memory of Ganz has been deleted as a result of a precise will, and never
re-enabled. As we will see, even very well documented in texts miss any
reference to him, which raises some uncomfortable questions, but this takes us
out from the facts the opinions ...

The Standard is the poor brother of the Beetle that we all know, the Export model.Its history and evolution had developed independently and discreetly, leaving little trace in the literature in the past.Also the literature of today offers very few information on it, and when it does is often superficial, incomplete, if not simply wrong.

But Standard is not only the poor variant of the beetle, it is also an attitude, a way of seeing things, paying attention to everything, by its nature, goes unnoticed because it is not trendy, not glamor, and is not cause of admiration, emulation, desire.